I like humor.
As long as the CO2 was captured from scrubbers and the extinguisher was made of recycled materials that were blessed by a hippy wearing homemade hemp clothing doused in pacholi.
And that carbon credit is in bitcoin. Doggecoin.
And the hippy got to the location of the burning polar bear on a sailboat that didn’t use any hydrocarbons whatsoever except for the construction of the hull that will take 10,000 years to biodegrade.
shhhh…
you’re not supposed to mention that…no mention of the carbon fiber and fiberglass yacht made from petroleum products, with the twin diesel burning engines for aux power…
also do not mention the first class private jets flying her around on dinosaur bones…
I’ll say it again: rules for thee, not for me
If a man beats his wife, then says wife beating is wrong, does that then make wife beating ok?
Or is wife beating wrong, regardless of the hypocrisy involved?
And so are the owners, sorry, donors of the Democratic Party: Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Steyer, Dorsey, Bloomberg …
What could it be that they want in return?
I never got the accusations of climate hypocrisy regarding plastics. It’s not like you’re burning the stuff, it’s made from petroleum but it goes into the landfill or ocean, not the atmosphere. Probably not great, but not the same issue.
So one would expect, say 50% of climate experts to be paid off by your list of comic book villains, and 50% to be paid off by oil companies. Assuming all climate experts can be paid off. Two opposing sides, battling it out on a flood of cash.
But this is not the case. 9 out of climate experts argue the existence of ACC. So in your theory only your list of Lex Luthors are bribing the experts, while the oil companies are all angels. Polly Purebreads. You have a high regard for the incorruptibility of oil company executives.
By the way, where is your proof that the 9 out of 10 are being bribed? Where are all the tell-all exposes of former bottle-washers saying they saw Soros (whoever he is…wait, is he the same guy as Sauron in that movie? ) slip a tenured professor a cool mil to say ACC is a thing.
Where’s your proof? By all means, let your your kraken loose. 
Perhaps you missed the question?
Free Netflix for life? Comped Amazon Prime membership? With that group, it’s not advice on how to land babes…
Perhaps Greta should just go to school, get a job, obey the law.
When a 17 year old occupies so much time in one’s head one should wonder. Why?
Her Asperger disorder should not even come into account. Michael Burry of the “Great Short” also has the disorder. Didn’t affect him being right.
At the end of the day all she is saying is quit spewing pollutants that the majority of scientists believe warm the planet.
Even if one disagrees with the fact that the earth is getting hotter at a greater rate than ever before why would one not want to reduce the spewing pollutants into the air. What’s the worst that could happen? Cleaner air?
I made a bit of money working for the oil producers but even they are now investing in cleaner technology. Is it out of altruism? Absolutely not but they recognize it’s time to change their business model.
Their minds were made up long before a 16 year old girl got on the bandwagon.
More money.
And more specifically, more power.
In the case of Zuck and Dorsey, they control inarguably the most powerful two platforms in the history of the world. Facebook and Twitter are the arbiters of whatever truth they want you to read and are fully protected under sec 230.
Presuming for a moment you are correct, which I doubt, how do they get more money advocating for reducing atmospheric carbon levels?
Seems to me the sure money is for them to buy up stock in oil companies and use their omnipotent propaganda power to increase oil production and natural gas. Big margins on consumables. No surer way to wealth.
How do you get more money by hypnotizing people to use less?
There’s a cognitive disconnect here as big as a ULCC. There’s more money in using than in not using. As for power, power comes from money, so again, back to square one.
Power can also come from a gun. But since those on the Right believe these guys are out to take away everyone’s guns, this doesn’t make any sense either.
So then the Right say these guys are socialists and communists. But the Right also say they want money. Which makes no sense, since they would lose all their money when they tax themselves.
So, in the end the Right has only one last, unassailable theory: Jewish space lasers.
I read neither Facebook or Twitter. Most of humanity doesn’t read them, either. So even if what you said is true, which it is not, who cares?
At one time in this country, three TV companies and four print conglomerates dominated the media world. In this very same era the USA was an unassailable industrial colossus. Obviously, the media system did no harm. It’s laughable that certain people are now terrified of returning to the same dynamic.
At any given time in the history of media, since Guttenberg, you can say that this big company or that had a lock on reality. But it’s never been true.
By the way, I too believe this should be repealed. Because it allows nameless, faceless attacks on the character of common people, destroying their lives. These attacks can come from anyone with a grievance. The operators of websites should be liable for allowing lies to be spread about common people.
Even a major shipping and oil drilling company from her home country of Sweden is trying to go green:
Don’t know if they have taken her words and deeds to heart, or if they just see money in this.
But in any case 
:
But is not only in Sweden that her influence is felt.
The Norwegian Government is funding projects to clean up the drilling industry:
PS> The NOV mentioned here is NOVs R&D division in Kristiansand, Norway. COSL Drilling is the European branch of a major Chinese Drilling and Oilfield Service Company and situated in Bergen.
I disagree. The operators of websites should allow all speech unless it is lawfully prohibited. The problem lies in the operators choosing who can and cannot say whatever things they want. The evil arises as they become the prosecutor, judge and jury on what can to cannot be said on their platform. Who elected them? The laws on prohibited speech are presumably democratically passed by representatives of the entire population, not just the biggest bully.
Section 230 isn’t inherently wrong if it’s enforced as it was meant to be. If you repeal it, that’s the end of small social media startups which won’t have the bullying bulk of a Facebook or Twitter to administer checking and censoring every post or comment made by an individual. They would die. They wouldn’t need to be deplatformed as Amazon did to Parler. They would never survive their first encounter with the lawyers infesting the US in numbers more than the rest of the world combined.
Big social media would love the repeal of section 230. They would end up with an enduring, unassailable monopoly.
Free speech is difficult. It hurts some people. But it is the most fundamental human right and the only answer to all the rubbish posted on such sites. More speech is the answer, not less. Freedom is the answer not subjugation.
The shareholders presumably.
I’m not sure CEOs of companies are elected by anyone.
But if you are happy for your freedoms to be decided by them that is your choice. It’s not mine.
I don’t know that much about corporate governance structure but in general:
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
The first amendment only applies to government restraints on free speech.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This is a correct statement of the law. The application is to government restraints only. There is no constitutional protection for being an a$$hole on Twitter (or gCaptain).